>Erh, is this a complicated way of saying that the Caland suffixes
> On 2006-09-24 18:13, tgpedersen wrote:
> > On the subject: Oettinger observes with glee on p. 164 after having
> > served an instance and half from Hittite (tepu ~ tepnuzzi, skt.
> > *dabhu- dabhnóti) that the theory that adjectives in -u and verbs
> > in -nu belong together is now vindicated. On p. 165 he mentions
> > that Benveniste wants to connect skt. dabhra- with Hittite tepu-.
> > So: -u-, -ro-, did I miss anything?
> No, that's right. As I was saying, *-ú- and *-ró- are "the same".
> But the Caland pattern doesn't include suffixless forms.